- May 21, 2026
- 0
- 0
One of the trickiest parts about managing a team in a salary-cap world is avoiding bad contracts. Even the smartest general managers have their blind spots and wind up signing deals that age very poorly. But while some bad deals are just nuisances for teams’ salary caps, others can cause major headaches and get in the way of building teams to the peak of their powers.
After looking at some of the best-value contracts last week, let’s look at the worst of the worst this week.
To do so, I’ll use the contract rating system from my salary-cap rankings series from the summer to decide the value of each player’s contract and how much value teams are losing. For an explainer on how the contract rating system works, you can learn more here. However, since there are more forwards than defensemen and goalies, forwards have a lower floor for their contract ratings. To compensate, the defensemen and goaltender ratings will be adjusted down based on the number of players in those positions compared to forwards.
One important distinction with this system is that it looks strictly at the discrepancy between the player’s on-ice value over the last three seasons and their cap hit for this season. So term won’t play a role in this, mostly due to my inability at this time to project players’ future impacts in relation to the future market. This means a bad-value deal with one year left will have the same value as one with several years left. It also won’t include extensions given to players in addition to their current deals; it will only consider the cap hits for the 2026-27 season.
This discrepancy also means that the rating will be more punishing towards replacement-level players who are getting paid relatively high salaries. So while Jonathan Huberdeau or Adin Hill may jump out as egregious contracts because of how much they are getting paid, they are still playing at levels akin to solid NHLers. Are they disappointing and underperforming their deals? Yes. But they are still living up to those deals more than replacement-level players would with cap hits in the range of $4-6 million.
While the best-value deals required qualifiers to put together the list to avoid a lot of random names, the worst-value list does not. By nature of having contract ratings as low as the players that cracked this list do, their cap hits have to be at least seven figures, likely meaning they’ve been established NHLers at some point. And if they aren’t established, that makes the contracts even worse.
Cap Hit: $6.15 million (4 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -382.11
There was once a time when Pulock was one of the league’s top defensemen. Maybe not at the level of a Cale Makar where he’d contend for Norris trophies, but he was one of the league’s stronger two-way defensemen and a driving force behind the Islanders’ runs to the Conference Finals. When he initially signed his $6.15 million extension in 2021, it looked like a steal for the Islanders compared to the $8-9 million AAVs going to other defensemen around his level.
However, Pulock’s performance has dipped in the past two seasons. Since my model only considers the past three seasons, this dip has significantly impacted Pulock’s contract rating. Perhaps this dip is a symptom of Patrick Roy’s run-and-gun style, and a more clamped-down Peter DeBoer can rejuvenate Pulock’s game. But until then, the $6.15 million cap hit doesn’t sit well on the Isles’ cap sheet, even if the AAV looks marginal by today’s contract standards.
Cap Hit: $8.25 million (4 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -382.11
Trouba is one of three contracts on this list beginning this season, and it was obvious from the get-go that this contract would be a bad one. There was a time when Trouba was a crafty two-way defenseman, but his game has fallen off completely since his time with the New York Rangers. He’s certainly not a top-four defenseman anymore and barely keeps up with the NHL game, but the Sharks decided that was worth an $8.25 million cap hit. Yes, he offers much-needed experience for the young Sharks team, but it felt like better options were available on the market.
What makes matters worse for San Jose is that the contract was immediately devalued by the exploding restricted free agent market. They signed the contract in the summer because they had almost $40 million in salary cap space, which was more than enough to lock in Trouba, trade for Darnell Nurse, and still retain all their young players. Now, Macklin Celebrini is signed for $18.8 million a year, Will Smith will probably come in around $15 million, and the Sharks aren’t in a position to spend freely anymore. Suddenly, that $8.25 million would help San Jose elsewhere, especially since it was used on a blueliner who has seen the game pass him by.
Cap Hit: $6 million (5 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -383.91
Matheson is another contract that begins this season, and like Trouba, it was also easy to see it becoming a bad one, although I wasn’t quite expecting it to be this bad. He’s struggled for most of the last three seasons, and deploying Matheson in the Canadiens’ top four is one reason why the team struggles to control play when their top players aren’t on the ice. He’s also 32 and isn’t getting any better, meaning locking him up for five seasons wasn’t a smart decision.
In fact, contracts like Matheson’s are why I wasn’t so quick to anoint the Canadiens as salary-cap kings in my rankings this summer. Rather, it was more the opposite. While they have their core locked up to excellent deals, that’s only half the battle in managing a salary-cap situation. You still have to spend the money you’ve saved wisely, and with contracts like Matheson’s, the Habs aren’t doing that. Hopefully, it’s a one-off, but this contract is an unnecessary problem they created themselves.
Cap Hit: $3,641,667 (1 year remaining)
Contract Rating: -387
Goodrow is one of two players returning from last year’s worst contracts list, although he gives up the top spot this time around. That’s a sign of both how his smaller cap hit has become inconsequential compared to the rising salary cap and how some players are just that much worse than him (and are signed to higher cap hits). Still, Goodrow remains on this list despite being the only player signed to less than $4 million, which shows how replaceable he has become. In fact, my model ranked him as the third-worst forward among the 602 it evaluated.
Goodrow’s contract is a classic example of the copycat league the NHL has always been. He won back-to-back Stanley Cups with the Tampa Bay Lightning, and the Rangers decided to buy high on him amidst an organizational overhaul to get tougher. It went as poorly as expected, and the Rangers were lucky San Jose was so willing to claim him on waivers. The contract hasn’t been a big problem for the rebuilding Sharks, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t being significantly overpaid. At least it’s finally done this season.
Cap Hit: $4.5 million (3 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -387.51
Ceci has long been a running joke in the NHL; his chaotic puck-moving abilities have caught the attention of many fans (for the wrong reasons). But he has had stretches in his career where he was an adequate defensive defenseman when deployed properly. The problem is that he is regularly deployed above his play level, usually paid too much, and sometimes even traded for too much. His inflated value drives the criticism of his game.
The worst part about Ceci’s contract might not be the contract itself, but who signed it. Ken Holland signed Ceci to his previous four-year contract with the Edmonton Oilers, a deal so bad they needed to dump it to San Jose. So what does Holland do in free agency in 2025? He signs an older, even worse Ceci to more money for the same term. It’s impressive how much Holland fails to learn from his mistakes, and Ceci is a great example of that.
Cap Hit: $13.75 million (6 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -411
Fantilli placing in the top five is more of an instance of my model not catching up with the drastically evolved RFA market than it is a criticism of Fantilli’s new contract. Now that Leo Carlsson has signed for $18 million, most RFAs have signed for far more than they would have if their teams had extended them during the season. Now, instead of being paid for past performance, they’ll be paid for future potential. That should be how contracts are signed in the NHL, but since most still reflect previous work, my model grades them as such, which punishes these new contracts.
In Fantilli’s case, there’s a good chance he’ll be worth at least $13.75 million a year if he lives up to his potential. Of the players on this list, he’s probably the only one with the potential to live up to his contract eventually. But right now, he lacks the consistency to be considered a true top-six player in an NHL lineup, let alone carry the fifth-highest cap hit in the league this season. My model will probably grade him as such until he shows otherwise.
Cap Hit: $4.5 million (3 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -412.74
Lindgren probably had one of the easiest rides in the NHL in terms of maximizing his earnings. For the first five years of his career with the Rangers, he was mostly strapped to Adam Fox’s side, and to the casual eye, he looked like a competent defensive defenseman alongside the Norris winner. Then he had a stint with the Colorado Avalanche, whose systems seem to make everyone look like they’re playing at the same pace as Nathan MacKinnon and Cale Makar. With that reputation, he cashed in with the Kraken, signing a four-year deal with a $4.5 million AAV.
Now, the Kraken are learning the hard way that he needs extreme sheltering to be even close to effective at the NHL level. Last season, he failed to drive scoring chances no matter who he played with; the Kraken couldn’t even muster a 46% 5v5 expected goal share when he was on the ice. Seattle has famously struggled to acquire elite talent, and that is the only way they could have made the Lindgren contract manageable. For now, they lack the personnel to properly insulate Lindgren.
Cap Hit: $7.75 million (5 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -426
I knew Lindholm’s contract would be bad when it was signed two summers ago. He was a two-way center capable of playing in the top six in a barren center market, and the Bruins have needed top-six centers ever since Patrice Bergeron’s and David Krejci’s retirement. It was a match made in hell from the very beginning. But I didn’t expect it to go this poorly this quickly.
Despite spending most of his time in Boston with David Pastrnak, Brad Marchand or Morgan Geekie, Lindholm has not produced at the level the Bruins hoped for his price tag. He accumulated 47 and 48 points in his first two seasons, although the latter was only in 69 games (a 57-point pace). But to make matters worse, his defensive game has fallen off a cliff, especially last season (-4.3 defensive expected GAR). So the Bruins aren’t getting offense or defense from a player they paid to be their top-line center. I bet the Calgary Flames are thrilled they moved on from him for two draft picks and three players when they did.
Cap Hit: $5.5 million (1 year remaining)
Contract Rating: -429
Last week saw the Canadiens had one of the best deals in the league with the final year of Jakub Dobes’ entry-level contract. So it makes sense that they also have two contracts on this worst list to balance it out. At least Anderson’s contract ends after this season (unless they extend him beyond this year to a similarly bad contract like they did with Matheson). But over the course of his seven-year contract, Anderson has failed to live up to its value.
We’ve seen plenty of contracts like Anderson’s before, and it’s a trap NHL general managers always fall for: the sizeable power forward who has shown a goal-scoring flair on occasion. They gamble on the high point (a 27-goal season in 2018-19 in Anderson’s case) in hopes that this is his usual form, and learn the hard way that it’s not. Anderson had a strong start to the contract, notching 17 goals in the shortened 2020-21 season, but has otherwise hit the 20-goal mark in a full season once, all while giving up far more in his own end. He gets the second spot because the value of his on-ice contributions is far below his cap hit, although the one year remaining at least makes it look better than some of the others on this list.
Cap Hit: $6.25 million (5 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -479
This one wasn’t even close. To put in perspective how bad my model considers Stephenson’s contract, there is a -50 gap between him and Anderson in second place. There are 10 players who fill up the 50-point gap after Anderson’s -429 rating. While his 51- and 49-point outputs in two seasons in Seattle wouldn’t suggest a $6.25 million cap hit is that bad, it looks much worse when you break down where the production is coming from. His production has benefitted from power-play time on a middling Kraken squad, as well as a fair amount of secondary points. Add in horrendous play-driving and defensive impacts, and when Stephenson is on the ice at 5v5, he hurts Seattle much more than he helps them.
It was quite easy to see this coming for the Kraken when they signed Stephenson to the seven-year contract in 2024. He was a savvy addition for the Vegas Golden Knights, and he played well in a complementary role to their elite forwards. But the second he was removed from that environment, it was clear he would suffer, especially on a Seattle squad with zero elite talent. But because they love their middle-six forwards and settle for the best option available, they paid a heavy price for a player who has already proven to be not even close to worth it.
Your daily hockey fix, delivered straight to your inbox. Get connected to every NHL storyline with breaking news, lineup updates, trade buzz, and expert analysis—delivered every morning. Sign up for the Daily Faceoff newsletter and don’t miss a beat!
Continue reading...
After looking at some of the best-value contracts last week, let’s look at the worst of the worst this week.
To do so, I’ll use the contract rating system from my salary-cap rankings series from the summer to decide the value of each player’s contract and how much value teams are losing. For an explainer on how the contract rating system works, you can learn more here. However, since there are more forwards than defensemen and goalies, forwards have a lower floor for their contract ratings. To compensate, the defensemen and goaltender ratings will be adjusted down based on the number of players in those positions compared to forwards.
One important distinction with this system is that it looks strictly at the discrepancy between the player’s on-ice value over the last three seasons and their cap hit for this season. So term won’t play a role in this, mostly due to my inability at this time to project players’ future impacts in relation to the future market. This means a bad-value deal with one year left will have the same value as one with several years left. It also won’t include extensions given to players in addition to their current deals; it will only consider the cap hits for the 2026-27 season.
This discrepancy also means that the rating will be more punishing towards replacement-level players who are getting paid relatively high salaries. So while Jonathan Huberdeau or Adin Hill may jump out as egregious contracts because of how much they are getting paid, they are still playing at levels akin to solid NHLers. Are they disappointing and underperforming their deals? Yes. But they are still living up to those deals more than replacement-level players would with cap hits in the range of $4-6 million.
While the best-value deals required qualifiers to put together the list to avoid a lot of random names, the worst-value list does not. By nature of having contract ratings as low as the players that cracked this list do, their cap hits have to be at least seven figures, likely meaning they’ve been established NHLers at some point. And if they aren’t established, that makes the contracts even worse.
10. Ryan Pulock, New York Islanders
Cap Hit: $6.15 million (4 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -382.11
There was once a time when Pulock was one of the league’s top defensemen. Maybe not at the level of a Cale Makar where he’d contend for Norris trophies, but he was one of the league’s stronger two-way defensemen and a driving force behind the Islanders’ runs to the Conference Finals. When he initially signed his $6.15 million extension in 2021, it looked like a steal for the Islanders compared to the $8-9 million AAVs going to other defensemen around his level.
However, Pulock’s performance has dipped in the past two seasons. Since my model only considers the past three seasons, this dip has significantly impacted Pulock’s contract rating. Perhaps this dip is a symptom of Patrick Roy’s run-and-gun style, and a more clamped-down Peter DeBoer can rejuvenate Pulock’s game. But until then, the $6.15 million cap hit doesn’t sit well on the Isles’ cap sheet, even if the AAV looks marginal by today’s contract standards.
9. Jacob Trouba, San Jose Sharks
Cap Hit: $8.25 million (4 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -382.11
Trouba is one of three contracts on this list beginning this season, and it was obvious from the get-go that this contract would be a bad one. There was a time when Trouba was a crafty two-way defenseman, but his game has fallen off completely since his time with the New York Rangers. He’s certainly not a top-four defenseman anymore and barely keeps up with the NHL game, but the Sharks decided that was worth an $8.25 million cap hit. Yes, he offers much-needed experience for the young Sharks team, but it felt like better options were available on the market.
What makes matters worse for San Jose is that the contract was immediately devalued by the exploding restricted free agent market. They signed the contract in the summer because they had almost $40 million in salary cap space, which was more than enough to lock in Trouba, trade for Darnell Nurse, and still retain all their young players. Now, Macklin Celebrini is signed for $18.8 million a year, Will Smith will probably come in around $15 million, and the Sharks aren’t in a position to spend freely anymore. Suddenly, that $8.25 million would help San Jose elsewhere, especially since it was used on a blueliner who has seen the game pass him by.
8. Mike Matheson, Montreal Canadiens
Cap Hit: $6 million (5 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -383.91
Matheson is another contract that begins this season, and like Trouba, it was also easy to see it becoming a bad one, although I wasn’t quite expecting it to be this bad. He’s struggled for most of the last three seasons, and deploying Matheson in the Canadiens’ top four is one reason why the team struggles to control play when their top players aren’t on the ice. He’s also 32 and isn’t getting any better, meaning locking him up for five seasons wasn’t a smart decision.
In fact, contracts like Matheson’s are why I wasn’t so quick to anoint the Canadiens as salary-cap kings in my rankings this summer. Rather, it was more the opposite. While they have their core locked up to excellent deals, that’s only half the battle in managing a salary-cap situation. You still have to spend the money you’ve saved wisely, and with contracts like Matheson’s, the Habs aren’t doing that. Hopefully, it’s a one-off, but this contract is an unnecessary problem they created themselves.
7. Barclay Goodrow, San Jose Sharks
Cap Hit: $3,641,667 (1 year remaining)
Contract Rating: -387
Goodrow is one of two players returning from last year’s worst contracts list, although he gives up the top spot this time around. That’s a sign of both how his smaller cap hit has become inconsequential compared to the rising salary cap and how some players are just that much worse than him (and are signed to higher cap hits). Still, Goodrow remains on this list despite being the only player signed to less than $4 million, which shows how replaceable he has become. In fact, my model ranked him as the third-worst forward among the 602 it evaluated.
Goodrow’s contract is a classic example of the copycat league the NHL has always been. He won back-to-back Stanley Cups with the Tampa Bay Lightning, and the Rangers decided to buy high on him amidst an organizational overhaul to get tougher. It went as poorly as expected, and the Rangers were lucky San Jose was so willing to claim him on waivers. The contract hasn’t been a big problem for the rebuilding Sharks, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t being significantly overpaid. At least it’s finally done this season.
6. Cody Ceci, Los Angeles Kings
Cap Hit: $4.5 million (3 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -387.51
Ceci has long been a running joke in the NHL; his chaotic puck-moving abilities have caught the attention of many fans (for the wrong reasons). But he has had stretches in his career where he was an adequate defensive defenseman when deployed properly. The problem is that he is regularly deployed above his play level, usually paid too much, and sometimes even traded for too much. His inflated value drives the criticism of his game.
The worst part about Ceci’s contract might not be the contract itself, but who signed it. Ken Holland signed Ceci to his previous four-year contract with the Edmonton Oilers, a deal so bad they needed to dump it to San Jose. So what does Holland do in free agency in 2025? He signs an older, even worse Ceci to more money for the same term. It’s impressive how much Holland fails to learn from his mistakes, and Ceci is a great example of that.
5. Adam Fantilli, Columbus Blue Jackets
Cap Hit: $13.75 million (6 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -411
Fantilli placing in the top five is more of an instance of my model not catching up with the drastically evolved RFA market than it is a criticism of Fantilli’s new contract. Now that Leo Carlsson has signed for $18 million, most RFAs have signed for far more than they would have if their teams had extended them during the season. Now, instead of being paid for past performance, they’ll be paid for future potential. That should be how contracts are signed in the NHL, but since most still reflect previous work, my model grades them as such, which punishes these new contracts.
In Fantilli’s case, there’s a good chance he’ll be worth at least $13.75 million a year if he lives up to his potential. Of the players on this list, he’s probably the only one with the potential to live up to his contract eventually. But right now, he lacks the consistency to be considered a true top-six player in an NHL lineup, let alone carry the fifth-highest cap hit in the league this season. My model will probably grade him as such until he shows otherwise.
4. Ryan Lindgren, Seattle Kraken
Cap Hit: $4.5 million (3 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -412.74
Lindgren probably had one of the easiest rides in the NHL in terms of maximizing his earnings. For the first five years of his career with the Rangers, he was mostly strapped to Adam Fox’s side, and to the casual eye, he looked like a competent defensive defenseman alongside the Norris winner. Then he had a stint with the Colorado Avalanche, whose systems seem to make everyone look like they’re playing at the same pace as Nathan MacKinnon and Cale Makar. With that reputation, he cashed in with the Kraken, signing a four-year deal with a $4.5 million AAV.
Now, the Kraken are learning the hard way that he needs extreme sheltering to be even close to effective at the NHL level. Last season, he failed to drive scoring chances no matter who he played with; the Kraken couldn’t even muster a 46% 5v5 expected goal share when he was on the ice. Seattle has famously struggled to acquire elite talent, and that is the only way they could have made the Lindgren contract manageable. For now, they lack the personnel to properly insulate Lindgren.
3. Elias Lindholm, Boston Bruins
Cap Hit: $7.75 million (5 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -426
I knew Lindholm’s contract would be bad when it was signed two summers ago. He was a two-way center capable of playing in the top six in a barren center market, and the Bruins have needed top-six centers ever since Patrice Bergeron’s and David Krejci’s retirement. It was a match made in hell from the very beginning. But I didn’t expect it to go this poorly this quickly.
Despite spending most of his time in Boston with David Pastrnak, Brad Marchand or Morgan Geekie, Lindholm has not produced at the level the Bruins hoped for his price tag. He accumulated 47 and 48 points in his first two seasons, although the latter was only in 69 games (a 57-point pace). But to make matters worse, his defensive game has fallen off a cliff, especially last season (-4.3 defensive expected GAR). So the Bruins aren’t getting offense or defense from a player they paid to be their top-line center. I bet the Calgary Flames are thrilled they moved on from him for two draft picks and three players when they did.
2. Josh Anderson, Montreal Canadiens
Cap Hit: $5.5 million (1 year remaining)
Contract Rating: -429
Last week saw the Canadiens had one of the best deals in the league with the final year of Jakub Dobes’ entry-level contract. So it makes sense that they also have two contracts on this worst list to balance it out. At least Anderson’s contract ends after this season (unless they extend him beyond this year to a similarly bad contract like they did with Matheson). But over the course of his seven-year contract, Anderson has failed to live up to its value.
We’ve seen plenty of contracts like Anderson’s before, and it’s a trap NHL general managers always fall for: the sizeable power forward who has shown a goal-scoring flair on occasion. They gamble on the high point (a 27-goal season in 2018-19 in Anderson’s case) in hopes that this is his usual form, and learn the hard way that it’s not. Anderson had a strong start to the contract, notching 17 goals in the shortened 2020-21 season, but has otherwise hit the 20-goal mark in a full season once, all while giving up far more in his own end. He gets the second spot because the value of his on-ice contributions is far below his cap hit, although the one year remaining at least makes it look better than some of the others on this list.
1. Chandler Stephenson, Seattle Kraken
Cap Hit: $6.25 million (5 years remaining)
Contract Rating: -479
This one wasn’t even close. To put in perspective how bad my model considers Stephenson’s contract, there is a -50 gap between him and Anderson in second place. There are 10 players who fill up the 50-point gap after Anderson’s -429 rating. While his 51- and 49-point outputs in two seasons in Seattle wouldn’t suggest a $6.25 million cap hit is that bad, it looks much worse when you break down where the production is coming from. His production has benefitted from power-play time on a middling Kraken squad, as well as a fair amount of secondary points. Add in horrendous play-driving and defensive impacts, and when Stephenson is on the ice at 5v5, he hurts Seattle much more than he helps them.
It was quite easy to see this coming for the Kraken when they signed Stephenson to the seven-year contract in 2024. He was a savvy addition for the Vegas Golden Knights, and he played well in a complementary role to their elite forwards. But the second he was removed from that environment, it was clear he would suffer, especially on a Seattle squad with zero elite talent. But because they love their middle-six forwards and settle for the best option available, they paid a heavy price for a player who has already proven to be not even close to worth it.
PRESENTED BY THE DAILY FACEOFF NEWSLETTER
Your daily hockey fix, delivered straight to your inbox. Get connected to every NHL storyline with breaking news, lineup updates, trade buzz, and expert analysis—delivered every morning. Sign up for the Daily Faceoff newsletter and don’t miss a beat!
Recently by Scott Maxwell
- The 10 best value contracts in the NHL for 2026-27
- 2026-27 NHL team preview: Tampa Bay Lightning
- 2026-27 NHL team preview: Seattle Kraken
- Ranking every NHL team’s 2026 salary cap situation: #8-1
- Ranking every NHL team’s 2026 salary cap situation: #16-9
Continue reading...